When they refused to accept legal tender, unless they specified otherwise in advance, they violated Federal law and his debt was legally discharged at that point.
It really is that simple. There's no crazy exceptions, unless it's written into the contract.
Yeah, I realized I was a little unclear, because I forgot to mention how those pens can be wrong.
Those iodine pens react with starch. Paper has starch, and the fabric in bills does not.
Sadly, it can easily get starch on it, the most obvious way is to accidently send it through the laundary. Either by really starching it, or sending it through with actual paper next to it that falls apart and 'melts' into it.
However, that wasn't what happened here. The cashier tested it with the pen, and the ink smeared slightly, but not black mark was made. Which isn't even what that test is for.
And smearing can happen on new bills. Grab an obviously new bill, hold it tight on a flat surface, and rub your thumb back and forth, hard. Usually, the bill will be fine, but look carefully at your thumb...you'll have tiny balls of ink on it that came off.
Don't worry if you 'hit the jackpot' and actually find one that smears badly, you can just take it to any bank, saying an ATM gave you this bill and you don't know if it's fake. They will know it's not and replace it.
Everything except 'debts' are government: Public charges, taxes, and dues. Which is why currency doesn't say anything except 'debts'...it's telling random people they have to accept this. The government presumably already knows what it will accept.
Taxes are obvious.
I honestly have no idea what 'dues' are. Anyone?
Public charges are talked about here and seem to be things like the post office. Or toll roads, if the Feds operate any of those.
So a charge is exactly what you pay at a store: Something in exchange for goods or services that you will trade at the same time, instead of covering an existing debt.
Sadly, only public charges are required to accept payment in legal tender...the post office cannot demand you pay in goats, but everyone else can.
Yes, I know. I was just responding to the goober who thinks you have, or can get, an oral contract at the cash register, and thus force them to accept legal tender, or, if they refuse, have your debt discharged. Which you can't, purchases don't work that way.
In this specific case, yes, that was a debt, and yes, they can't refuse payment in legal tender unless they specifically stated so up front.
Oh, I had no idea they had a copper nickel version. Nevermind.
The Eisenhower silver dollar I have says '1 ounce silver' on it. It's worth about 20 dollars as a collectable, and about 5 dollars if I were just to melt it down.
Many cashiers pull two bucks out of their own waller, stick it in the till, and keep the two. They no longer have to worry about it, and they have a neat two dollar bill.
All the stupid people counterfeit fifties. I've never heard of anyone counterfeiting twos. The professionals like fives and tens, although ones are fun because you can spend them with zero risk of getting caught at change machines. They don't have to be good at all, change machines are stupid. (Yes, you can spend fives and tens at some, also, but why does it matter? Paper and ink are cheap, and more machines accept ones.)
And the GP is right. No counterfeiter in the history of the world has ever run off sequential numbers. That would just be inane and pointless.
See, counterfeiters know that new-looking money is suspicious, and much easier to notice flaws on, and additionally their paper is sometimes slightly odd when new. So most counterfeiters print money and then put wear and tear on it. (Actually, a lot of them print money and sell it for pennies on the dollar, and the buyers put wear and tear on it.)
The other kind of counterfeiting is to fill briefcases with brand-new looking money, with real money on top, and you don't want sequential serials on that because then it looks stolen.
Sequential numbers are not a sign of counterfeiting, they are actually an anti-sign of counterfeiting, although one that's not used because if it was, counterfeiters would start making them.
A 'contract' is not the same as an 'offer'. (If you did have a contract at that point, they could sue you if you failed to produce the cash, which they cannot.)
This is how sales work, legally: They make an offer. You accept the offer by actually paying. When they, in return, accept your payment, the sale is made. Any of you can, at any point until your payment is accepted, back out of it. There are no 'contracts' in sales, just an offer and acceptance. (1)
And that doesn't work anyway because oral contracts have the understanding that they are vague, thus 'trickery' is much harder to get away with using them, and contracts that immediately fall into dispute are not important anyway, because no harm has been suffered by anyone.
For example: You're walking down the road, and I ask you to wash my car for five dollars. You agree, I pull out twenty quarters, you refuse to accept them. You know what would happen if I sued you?
Nothing. Your failure to abide by your contract gained you nothing, and didn't harm me at all, except wasting two minutes of everyone's time. We thought we agreed to terms, and then we immediately disagreed before any action was taken, and thus any breach-of-contract case would be dismissed due to lack of damages. If it had been a written contract that specificed '$5', I might have gotten something, but the vagueness of an oral contract stops that idea.
And that whole concept is idiotic, anyway. To have a 'debt' for goods would require you get the cashier to promise to give the goods now and get paid later (Even if 'later' is 'one minute from now.), which would be a really idiotic thing for a clerk to agree to. And even if they agreed to that, they wouldn't actually do that, so you couldn't have a debt! You'd just have a contract breach, which, like I said, is not helpful.
Of course, you could then sue them to get the goods for the agreed upon amount, and you might or might not win, but as this entire premise is about you tricking them into getting them for free, I fail to see what good spending hundreds on lawyers would be. Even assuming you 'win' the case and the court 'forces' the store to sell fifty dollars worth of stuff for fifty dollars, which it was trying to do in the first place.
1) As an aside, the price tag on an item is not an offer. The offer is made when the cashier says you have to pay X money for these goods on the counter that were just tallied up.
There's no limit on coins, that's just an urban legend.
Some stores don't allow purchases over a certain amount in coins, but they can also legally refuse to take five dollars bills or bills with an odd serial number for purchases. Stores can refuse to sell for any reason at all, barring some forms of discrimination against people forbidden by law. But there are no forms of payment you can't discriminate again.
But, as you point out, they are required to take 'legal tender' in payments of debts, and coins are legal tender. Unless they specifically restrict forms of payment before you incur your debt. (For example, gas stations sometimes restrict you from paying with bills more than fifty over the amount. Although often that sign is in the store, which is idiotic as the debt will be incurred before you go in there, so they can't actually enforce that. Luckily, none of them do anyway.)
And, yes, as far as I know, if you offer to pay in any legal tender, and it is refused, your debt is discharged. Be sure to get a witness.
No. Businesses can refuse service for any reason. So you can't walk into Best Buy and sue because they won't take your two dollar bills. They don't have to take anything from you.
Of course, if you've already consumed something, like gas or a meal, and attempt to pay, and they refuse it, feel free to grab a witness to their rejection of your legal tender, and then leave without paying. They can't refuse payment in any legal tender whatsoever for services already rendered unless they've stated so up front. (That's why it talks about all debts, public and private.)
The pens do not smear ink. Having the ink smear when you use them has nothing to do with anything.
Those almost completely worthless pens are supposed to make a black mark if it's printed on paper, as opposed to the fabric actual bills are printed on. They're just iodine! It reacts with paper and turns black. They aren't some magical counterfit detecting thing.
Having smeared ink on money is rare, but it happens. If you get it, you should take it to the bank and they'll replace it. It's not very common sign of counterfitting...counterfitters don't use ink that runs either.
Oh, and I love the concept that sequential bill numbers are somehow suspicious. Yeah, the counterfitters have the ability to change numbers (Which many do not), and decided they'd make it easy on themselves by counting in one direction, instead of just picking random numbers. Riiiight.
Sequential bill numbers are the opposite of suspicious WRT counterfitting, the only way you get those is at a bank, and banks do not get counterfit money from the mint. (He might have robbed a bank, but that's an entire different matter.)
So Peir1 posts an advertisment saying "Hi, we host spammers", then does it? Oh, wait, no they don't. So how does the customer know that's what they're supporting? They just think they're getting e-mail connectivity.
Pier1's misrepresentations about their level of service aren't really anyone else's problems.
And, no, of course only a very small level of blame attaches to other customers, just like only a very small level of blame attaches to people with zombie machines.
That doesn't mean we should go 'It's not their fault' and let them remain on the net. If someone does something bad through ignorance, you limit the damage they can do as much as possible, and let them fix the problem, and then you let them back, no questions asked.
So as soon as formerly ignorant people get off Pier1, they will be unblocked. In fact, that happens automatically!
"We're not discriminating agaisnt YOU, sir, just everyone who lives on the same block as you..."
Hey, you got it. Because every time anyone goes past that block (gets mail from that block) they get mugged (sent spam). So, of course, they don't visit any businesses in that block anymore. And then some people get together and published lists of 'most dangerous neighborhoods' and listed it, and now no one goes there. See how easy it is?
Solution: Move the business to another block. And it's a million times easier with email on the net...people can literally pay ten dollars a month to do that. Bill it to the ISP who promise service it can't deliver because it chooses to selectively enforce its own AUP.
A better analogy: It's the near future, with intelligent robots and there are dozens of moving companies. People have started shipping robots to companies (disguised as normal packages) in the hopes the robots can steal stuff. Very few of them can, but robots are so cheap, a 0.1% return rate is fine.
Many shipping companies are fighting this, but a few are not, like Pier1. In fact, Pier1 can offer lower rates because they charge thieves extra.
Some people who use Pier1 like to argue that the packages they send do not contain burglar robots.
But many people just find it easier to block the whole damn shipping company if they're going to be knowingly commiting crimes. They don't even let those people in the building.
Why? Well, one of the reason is, if the shipping company is in bed with the criminals, then they shouldn't be trusted, which is exactly what you do when you let things in based on return address. (To return from the analogy, spamming hosts can, and have, moved spammers from blocked IPs to clean ones, and the people who were on that IP somewhere else.)
If people don't want to be blocked, they need to pick their shipping company more carefully. Anything coming from spamming companies is tainted and dangerous.
I am sorry hosting and ISP blocks interfere with business. Take it up with the people whose continual criminal behavior is causing their entire address space to be blocked, not the people merely reporting it.
17 year olds can't be sent to Juvey in Georgia. With regard to breaking the law, you're a full adult at 17. You go to adult prisons, where you legally have almost no privacy.
And I meant they wouldn't press charges now. I'd heard a little about that case, which is why they won't do anything now. You look like an idiot arresting a child for child abuse they've committed against themselves.
Why is everyone forgetting the Olympic Park bomber? Who also bombed a gay nightclub and an abortion clinic.
Anyway, he did three separate attacks. The Olympic Park was to kill police officers, and the other two were to fight 'immorality' by killing peope.
Timothy McVeigh has one total, to kill government employees.
Both the Unabomber and the DC Sniper are harder to count, as they committed a string of smaller instances. Let's just call each reached the terrorism level of two larger attacks.
The Unabomber was attacking people basically randomly, out of a weird luddite political position.
The DC Sniper...I don't think anyone's figured that out.
And, of course, the World Trade Center was attacked twice, by the same people. Let's call that three, one half for the unsuccessful attack and two and half for 9/11.
Totals for race:
Black:2
White:6 (2 of those by Jews, if that matters.)
Arabic:3
Totals for 'religion', or at least apparent religion:
Muslim:6 (DC Sniper was Muslim, wasn't he?)
Jewish:2 (Kaczynski was Jewish, wasn't he?)
Christian:4
Totals for cause
Unknown: 2
Religious: 5 (2 Christian, 3 Muslim)
Political: 4 (2 right wing, 2 eco-terrorist.)
Gender
Just kidding, they're all male.
Adding all those up, it appears the most dangerous people are white Muslim males. Except there weren't any of those in the list, so let's go to the next runner up:
White Christian males. Who either have strong opinions about about how people shouldn't be immoral, or strong opinions about how the government is to far too the right or the left. And I'd have to say people who think that both are true, like the Olympic park bomber, probably belong at the top of the list.
The least dangerous people are apparently...black Jewish women. Hrm.
The Pentagon isn't a 'Federal building', it is a military building. (It is, in fact, the military building.) If you count that, you'd have to count every single military structure ever hit as 'an attack on a Federal building'.
But of course people expect military buildings to be attacked, and wouldn't keep kids there. Anyone who doesn't expect the Pentagon to be the most wanted target by any enemy simply isn't paying attention.
(Do they even let kids in the Pentagon? Don't you have to be in intelligence or the military to even be in 99.99% of the building? By defination, not only is the building a legit military target, but everyone individually in the building would be one if they were standing alone in a field, except for the reporters standing around in the lobby or whatever.)
Anyway, you can complain Dun Malg wasn't clear, but no one expects random civilian government targets to be hit, and thus they aren't 'hiding' behind children there.
Now, there are a few targets that a 'hiding behid children' claim could be made of. Like the White House. Legit military target, it's the HQ of the commander-in-chief. It also has tends to have civilians living in it, namely, the president's family.
But not Misc. Government Building in some random state.
So let me get this straight, Large Corporation. A man came in and ripped you off by pretending to be me.
Man that sucks for you. But why, exactly, is something I should be concerned about?
'Identity theft'? That's a fairly odd concept...you mean you think he might kill and try to replace me?
No, I wasn't the victim already. I'm still here. I'm still me, clearly my 'identity' has not been stolen, whatever that means.
It sounds like you were the victim of fraud. I have no idea what you're talking about with regard to theft of something of mine, all my stuff is still here.
And if you don't immediately remove all hints of your ineptitude from my credit report I'll sue you for libel.
I'm sorry to have to threaten you so soon after you were ripped off, but blaming me is not the way to solve anything. If you want to know if I'm me the next time I show up, feel free to call me.
'Identity theft' my ass. That's like the cops chasing someone's car into the side of my house, and blaming me for not putting up better fences.
You do a financial transfer, giving your money to someone else, and giving the bank a phone number.
They call that number, asking you to confirm using some secret code, after they tell you the details of the transaction just ordered
Yes, in theory, someone could fake a call from them...if they called at exactly the right time, and somehow knew the details of a transaction you had ordered.
There are plenty of insecure systems out there...that's not one of them. Giving out passwords to incoming calls is dumb, giving out passwords to callbacks you just ordered is not, especially when they have details you just gave them.
They delibrately provide connectivity to spammers, and thus are themselves spammers.
Their non-spam-sending customers may be considering spammers or not, depending on how you look at it. I consider purchasing hosting from spammers a rather dubious activity, but not completely 'spamming' per se, but many people think otherwise, that any spam support at all is spamming. (Of course, it could be unknowing spamming, like people with owned machines, in which case you should inform them of the problem and just block them until they fix the problem it, and then unblock them.)
However, it's not them that's being blocked in the first place. It's Pier1's network. Pier1's network is what is being blocked.
I mean, in the rest of the world, people know if you purchase services from businesses that also practice criminal acts, those criminal acts may not only reflect back on your business and cause PR problems, but might actually result in the failure of whatever services you're using when they get shutdown.
There's the file traders. They'd just downloading, and I agree it doesn't really matter if it's real child porn or fake child porn. Locating people who download real child porn isn't as important as locating where they got it from.
That said, I'd leave it illegal, with the 'out' that if you 'accidently' downloaded real child porn, and you cooperate with the police in tracing it, you don't go to jail or publically outed. You have to delete it all, and pay a large fine, which goes to the child.
Then you get to the two types of people who produce it:
Amateurs who do it to kids they know. These can, and should be tracked down. They're easier to tracking down than normal child abuse, because, duh, they took pictures of it.
In fact, that's how I'd approach that. I'd make a database of the images (Well, the faces.) and whenever child abuse is reported, run the kid's face! And any other kids nearby! (Obviously, no record should be kept of the kids that are misses.) Let's use those facial recognization programs for something that isn't morally questionable, for once.
And there's the professionals, who probably started out amateurs or traders, and discovered there was money it. These are much harder to track down. They kidnap and buy children, and while it might be useful to run missing children through the face database above, it doesn't really help locate them.
However, the professionals, unlike the amateurs, sell the stuff, and thus can't be posting it anonymously on Usenet. They have to have a contact channel. Which is where the first set of people come in.
Slashdot Mirror
When they refused to accept legal tender, unless they specified otherwise in advance, they violated Federal law and his debt was legally discharged at that point.
It really is that simple. There's no crazy exceptions, unless it's written into the contract.
It doesn't say that the Feds can't do that.
Those iodine pens react with starch. Paper has starch, and the fabric in bills does not.
Sadly, it can easily get starch on it, the most obvious way is to accidently send it through the laundary. Either by really starching it, or sending it through with actual paper next to it that falls apart and 'melts' into it.
However, that wasn't what happened here. The cashier tested it with the pen, and the ink smeared slightly, but not black mark was made. Which isn't even what that test is for.
And smearing can happen on new bills. Grab an obviously new bill, hold it tight on a flat surface, and rub your thumb back and forth, hard. Usually, the bill will be fine, but look carefully at your thumb...you'll have tiny balls of ink on it that came off.
Don't worry if you 'hit the jackpot' and actually find one that smears badly, you can just take it to any bank, saying an ATM gave you this bill and you don't know if it's fake. They will know it's not and replace it.
Taxes are obvious.
I honestly have no idea what 'dues' are. Anyone?
Public charges are talked about here and seem to be things like the post office. Or toll roads, if the Feds operate any of those.
So a charge is exactly what you pay at a store: Something in exchange for goods or services that you will trade at the same time, instead of covering an existing debt.
Sadly, only public charges are required to accept payment in legal tender...the post office cannot demand you pay in goats, but everyone else can.
In this specific case, yes, that was a debt, and yes, they can't refuse payment in legal tender unless they specifically stated so up front.
The Eisenhower silver dollar I have says '1 ounce silver' on it. It's worth about 20 dollars as a collectable, and about 5 dollars if I were just to melt it down.
A few states have the bar lower, and you can almost always get away with it if they actually did commit the crime, no matter what the standard is.
Many cashiers pull two bucks out of their own waller, stick it in the till, and keep the two. They no longer have to worry about it, and they have a neat two dollar bill.
And the GP is right. No counterfeiter in the history of the world has ever run off sequential numbers. That would just be inane and pointless.
See, counterfeiters know that new-looking money is suspicious, and much easier to notice flaws on, and additionally their paper is sometimes slightly odd when new. So most counterfeiters print money and then put wear and tear on it. (Actually, a lot of them print money and sell it for pennies on the dollar, and the buyers put wear and tear on it.)
The other kind of counterfeiting is to fill briefcases with brand-new looking money, with real money on top, and you don't want sequential serials on that because then it looks stolen.
Sequential numbers are not a sign of counterfeiting, they are actually an anti-sign of counterfeiting, although one that's not used because if it was, counterfeiters would start making them.
Down here there is not. All US coins are legally tender and can be used to repay all debts, public and private, in any combination.
A 'contract' is not the same as an 'offer'. (If you did have a contract at that point, they could sue you if you failed to produce the cash, which they cannot.)
This is how sales work, legally: They make an offer. You accept the offer by actually paying. When they, in return, accept your payment, the sale is made. Any of you can, at any point until your payment is accepted, back out of it. There are no 'contracts' in sales, just an offer and acceptance. (1)
And that doesn't work anyway because oral contracts have the understanding that they are vague, thus 'trickery' is much harder to get away with using them, and contracts that immediately fall into dispute are not important anyway, because no harm has been suffered by anyone.
For example: You're walking down the road, and I ask you to wash my car for five dollars. You agree, I pull out twenty quarters, you refuse to accept them. You know what would happen if I sued you?
Nothing. Your failure to abide by your contract gained you nothing, and didn't harm me at all, except wasting two minutes of everyone's time. We thought we agreed to terms, and then we immediately disagreed before any action was taken, and thus any breach-of-contract case would be dismissed due to lack of damages. If it had been a written contract that specificed '$5', I might have gotten something, but the vagueness of an oral contract stops that idea.
And that whole concept is idiotic, anyway. To have a 'debt' for goods would require you get the cashier to promise to give the goods now and get paid later (Even if 'later' is 'one minute from now.), which would be a really idiotic thing for a clerk to agree to. And even if they agreed to that, they wouldn't actually do that, so you couldn't have a debt! You'd just have a contract breach, which, like I said, is not helpful.
Of course, you could then sue them to get the goods for the agreed upon amount, and you might or might not win, but as this entire premise is about you tricking them into getting them for free, I fail to see what good spending hundreds on lawyers would be. Even assuming you 'win' the case and the court 'forces' the store to sell fifty dollars worth of stuff for fifty dollars, which it was trying to do in the first place.
1) As an aside, the price tag on an item is not an offer. The offer is made when the cashier says you have to pay X money for these goods on the counter that were just tallied up.
They aren't (just) valuable as coins, they're valuable as silver. They have an ounce of silver in them, which is like five dollars worth.
Some stores don't allow purchases over a certain amount in coins, but they can also legally refuse to take five dollars bills or bills with an odd serial number for purchases. Stores can refuse to sell for any reason at all, barring some forms of discrimination against people forbidden by law. But there are no forms of payment you can't discriminate again.
But, as you point out, they are required to take 'legal tender' in payments of debts, and coins are legal tender. Unless they specifically restrict forms of payment before you incur your debt. (For example, gas stations sometimes restrict you from paying with bills more than fifty over the amount. Although often that sign is in the store, which is idiotic as the debt will be incurred before you go in there, so they can't actually enforce that. Luckily, none of them do anyway.)
And, yes, as far as I know, if you offer to pay in any legal tender, and it is refused, your debt is discharged. Be sure to get a witness.
Of course, if you've already consumed something, like gas or a meal, and attempt to pay, and they refuse it, feel free to grab a witness to their rejection of your legal tender, and then leave without paying. They can't refuse payment in any legal tender whatsoever for services already rendered unless they've stated so up front. (That's why it talks about all debts, public and private.)
Those almost completely worthless pens are supposed to make a black mark if it's printed on paper, as opposed to the fabric actual bills are printed on. They're just iodine! It reacts with paper and turns black. They aren't some magical counterfit detecting thing.
Having smeared ink on money is rare, but it happens. If you get it, you should take it to the bank and they'll replace it. It's not very common sign of counterfitting...counterfitters don't use ink that runs either.
Oh, and I love the concept that sequential bill numbers are somehow suspicious. Yeah, the counterfitters have the ability to change numbers (Which many do not), and decided they'd make it easy on themselves by counting in one direction, instead of just picking random numbers. Riiiight.
Sequential bill numbers are the opposite of suspicious WRT counterfitting, the only way you get those is at a bank, and banks do not get counterfit money from the mint. (He might have robbed a bank, but that's an entire different matter.)
It's not that bad. Most crimes are in the service industry. It's hard to see how we could outsource car theft or drug dealing.
VoIP. Over his cable modem.
Pier1's misrepresentations about their level of service aren't really anyone else's problems.
And, no, of course only a very small level of blame attaches to other customers, just like only a very small level of blame attaches to people with zombie machines.
That doesn't mean we should go 'It's not their fault' and let them remain on the net. If someone does something bad through ignorance, you limit the damage they can do as much as possible, and let them fix the problem, and then you let them back, no questions asked.
So as soon as formerly ignorant people get off Pier1, they will be unblocked. In fact, that happens automatically!
"We're not discriminating agaisnt YOU, sir, just everyone who lives on the same block as you..."
Hey, you got it. Because every time anyone goes past that block (gets mail from that block) they get mugged (sent spam). So, of course, they don't visit any businesses in that block anymore. And then some people get together and published lists of 'most dangerous neighborhoods' and listed it, and now no one goes there. See how easy it is?
Solution: Move the business to another block. And it's a million times easier with email on the net...people can literally pay ten dollars a month to do that. Bill it to the ISP who promise service it can't deliver because it chooses to selectively enforce its own AUP.
A better analogy: It's the near future, with intelligent robots and there are dozens of moving companies. People have started shipping robots to companies (disguised as normal packages) in the hopes the robots can steal stuff. Very few of them can, but robots are so cheap, a 0.1% return rate is fine.
Many shipping companies are fighting this, but a few are not, like Pier1. In fact, Pier1 can offer lower rates because they charge thieves extra.
Some people who use Pier1 like to argue that the packages they send do not contain burglar robots.
But many people just find it easier to block the whole damn shipping company if they're going to be knowingly commiting crimes. They don't even let those people in the building.
Why? Well, one of the reason is, if the shipping company is in bed with the criminals, then they shouldn't be trusted, which is exactly what you do when you let things in based on return address. (To return from the analogy, spamming hosts can, and have, moved spammers from blocked IPs to clean ones, and the people who were on that IP somewhere else.)
If people don't want to be blocked, they need to pick their shipping company more carefully. Anything coming from spamming companies is tainted and dangerous.
I am sorry hosting and ISP blocks interfere with business. Take it up with the people whose continual criminal behavior is causing their entire address space to be blocked, not the people merely reporting it.
And I meant they wouldn't press charges now. I'd heard a little about that case, which is why they won't do anything now. You look like an idiot arresting a child for child abuse they've committed against themselves.
Anyway, he did three separate attacks. The Olympic Park was to kill police officers, and the other two were to fight 'immorality' by killing peope.
Timothy McVeigh has one total, to kill government employees.
Both the Unabomber and the DC Sniper are harder to count, as they committed a string of smaller instances. Let's just call each reached the terrorism level of two larger attacks.
The Unabomber was attacking people basically randomly, out of a weird luddite political position.
The DC Sniper...I don't think anyone's figured that out.
And, of course, the World Trade Center was attacked twice, by the same people. Let's call that three, one half for the unsuccessful attack and two and half for 9/11.
Totals for race:
Black:2
White:6 (2 of those by Jews, if that matters.)
Arabic:3
Totals for 'religion', or at least apparent religion:
Muslim:6 (DC Sniper was Muslim, wasn't he?)
Jewish:2 (Kaczynski was Jewish, wasn't he?)
Christian:4
Totals for cause
Unknown: 2
Religious: 5 (2 Christian, 3 Muslim)
Political: 4 (2 right wing, 2 eco-terrorist.)
Gender
Just kidding, they're all male.
Adding all those up, it appears the most dangerous people are white Muslim males. Except there weren't any of those in the list, so let's go to the next runner up:
White Christian males. Who either have strong opinions about about how people shouldn't be immoral, or strong opinions about how the government is to far too the right or the left. And I'd have to say people who think that both are true, like the Olympic park bomber, probably belong at the top of the list.
The least dangerous people are apparently...black Jewish women. Hrm.
But of course people expect military buildings to be attacked, and wouldn't keep kids there. Anyone who doesn't expect the Pentagon to be the most wanted target by any enemy simply isn't paying attention.
(Do they even let kids in the Pentagon? Don't you have to be in intelligence or the military to even be in 99.99% of the building? By defination, not only is the building a legit military target, but everyone individually in the building would be one if they were standing alone in a field, except for the reporters standing around in the lobby or whatever.)
Anyway, you can complain Dun Malg wasn't clear, but no one expects random civilian government targets to be hit, and thus they aren't 'hiding' behind children there.
Now, there are a few targets that a 'hiding behid children' claim could be made of. Like the White House. Legit military target, it's the HQ of the commander-in-chief. It also has tends to have civilians living in it, namely, the president's family.
But not Misc. Government Building in some random state.
So let me get this straight, Large Corporation. A man came in and ripped you off by pretending to be me.
Man that sucks for you. But why, exactly, is something I should be concerned about?
'Identity theft'? That's a fairly odd concept...you mean you think he might kill and try to replace me?
No, I wasn't the victim already. I'm still here. I'm still me, clearly my 'identity' has not been stolen, whatever that means.
It sounds like you were the victim of fraud. I have no idea what you're talking about with regard to theft of something of mine, all my stuff is still here.
And if you don't immediately remove all hints of your ineptitude from my credit report I'll sue you for libel.
I'm sorry to have to threaten you so soon after you were ripped off, but blaming me is not the way to solve anything. If you want to know if I'm me the next time I show up, feel free to call me.
'Identity theft' my ass. That's like the cops chasing someone's car into the side of my house, and blaming me for not putting up better fences.
You do a financial transfer, giving your money to someone else, and giving the bank a phone number.
They call that number, asking you to confirm using some secret code, after they tell you the details of the transaction just ordered
Yes, in theory, someone could fake a call from them...if they called at exactly the right time, and somehow knew the details of a transaction you had ordered.
There are plenty of insecure systems out there...that's not one of them. Giving out passwords to incoming calls is dumb, giving out passwords to callbacks you just ordered is not, especially when they have details you just gave them.
Their non-spam-sending customers may be considering spammers or not, depending on how you look at it. I consider purchasing hosting from spammers a rather dubious activity, but not completely 'spamming' per se, but many people think otherwise, that any spam support at all is spamming. (Of course, it could be unknowing spamming, like people with owned machines, in which case you should inform them of the problem and just block them until they fix the problem it, and then unblock them.)
However, it's not them that's being blocked in the first place. It's Pier1's network. Pier1's network is what is being blocked.
I mean, in the rest of the world, people know if you purchase services from businesses that also practice criminal acts, those criminal acts may not only reflect back on your business and cause PR problems, but might actually result in the failure of whatever services you're using when they get shutdown.
There's the file traders. They'd just downloading, and I agree it doesn't really matter if it's real child porn or fake child porn. Locating people who download real child porn isn't as important as locating where they got it from.
That said, I'd leave it illegal, with the 'out' that if you 'accidently' downloaded real child porn, and you cooperate with the police in tracing it, you don't go to jail or publically outed. You have to delete it all, and pay a large fine, which goes to the child.
Then you get to the two types of people who produce it:
Amateurs who do it to kids they know. These can, and should be tracked down. They're easier to tracking down than normal child abuse, because, duh, they took pictures of it.
In fact, that's how I'd approach that. I'd make a database of the images (Well, the faces.) and whenever child abuse is reported, run the kid's face! And any other kids nearby! (Obviously, no record should be kept of the kids that are misses.) Let's use those facial recognization programs for something that isn't morally questionable, for once.
And there's the professionals, who probably started out amateurs or traders, and discovered there was money it. These are much harder to track down. They kidnap and buy children, and while it might be useful to run missing children through the face database above, it doesn't really help locate them.
However, the professionals, unlike the amateurs, sell the stuff, and thus can't be posting it anonymously on Usenet. They have to have a contact channel. Which is where the first set of people come in.